Monday, April 09, 2012

VIDEO: Why We Need Voter-ID Laws

"Average voters understand that it’s only common sense to require ID
because of how easy it is for people to pretend they are someone else.

In the video above, filmmaker James O’Keefe demonstrated just how easy it is on Tuesday when he dispatched an assistant to the Nebraska Avenue polling place in Washington where Attorney General Holder has been registered for the last 29 years.
In Washington, it was child’s play for O’Keefe to beat the system. O’Keefe’s assistant used a hidden camera to document his encounter with the election worker at Holder’s polling place.

Note that O’Keefe’s assistant never identified himself as Eric Holder, so he was not illegally impersonating him.
Nor did he attempt to vote using the ballot that was offered him, or even to accept it."

29 Comments:

My Colombian wife is dual-citizen. She votes at the consulate here, and they require ID AND roll her finger in permanent ink to discourage multiple voting. You don't hear whining about "vote suppression" in her 3rd world country. That's strictly a pathetic Democrat pity party.

The embrace of illegal immigration, Motor Voter, and same day registrations all go hand-in-hand with Democrat opposition to voter id. It would be nice if they'd stop insulting everyone's intelligence and just admit the game is to steal elections.

My Colombian wife is dual-citizen. She votes at the consulate here, and they require ID AND roll her finger in permanent ink to discourage multiple voting. You don't hear whining about "vote suppression" in her 3rd world country. That's strictly a pathetic Democrat pity party.

Of course. I can't wrap my head around someone claiming that identifying yourself for the purposes of voting, somehow limits anyone from voting.

In my country, you're required to have a biometirc ID with computer chips and all sorts of security features to vote. And we're a poor East European country that first learned how to vote a few years ago.

At the risk of nit-picking, this video hardly seems conclusive. The man never claimed to be Holder (which, as noted, would have been illegal). It seems to me that this shows more the need to properly train polling place workers to ask the right questions rather than a need for voter ID laws.

if he had wanted to get the ballot, he could have. if you use it to vote, that is already a crime, so adding pretending to be holder is no real additional issue.

training a worker to ask "are you holder?" does not fix that, nor does it address the massive issue of voter fraud and inflated voter rolls. in providence, the "dead guy vote" can be quite decisive.

what it really comes down to is this: US citizens have the right to vote. requiring id does not abridge that right, it demonstrates that you possess it. it prevents others from diluting that right by usurping either you vote or some other vote to which they are not entitled.

in a perfect world, sure, we'd all go in and vote and no one would need to check. but it is not a perfect world. in reality, lots of fraud takes place and it is unbelievably easy to prevent.

the claims of "voter disenfrancishement" from needing an ID are all apocryphal and hypothetical. there never seems to be any actual evidence of it. it's a complete sham to defend fraud.

Hell, if I wasn't threatened with jail time, I wouldn't even fill out a Census form.

My Facebook is more sterile than a Spartan barrack.

I do understand your point and all the points made here completely, Morganovich. But IDs make me cringe.

Thought: what if we do away with the whole "signing in to vote" thing. In lieu of that, each registered voter is mailed a card that just says "Barer entitled to one ballot in district whatever" or something similar. It would be up to the town/county/district to maintain voter registration records. That way, we'd prevent fraud from dead people.

Thoughts? I am sure there are problems wit this idea. It was conceived in about 5 minutes.

"Thought: what if we do away with the whole "signing in to vote" thing. In lieu of that, each registered voter is mailed a card that just says "Barer entitled to one ballot in district whatever" or something similar.

Wouldn't be long before Professor Perry had a new "Markets in Everything" post.

I don't think there are enough jails to handle all the people who refuse to fill out the census.

But, when black plastic bin liners stuffed with filled out "lost" ballots (all magically in favour of the losing candidate) arrive in Bridgeport after the polls were supposed to be closed and those polls are held open for hours after they were supposed to be closed as the local Democrats round up folks from the Bridgeport housing projects and pay them to get on the bus, go to the held-open polls and vote for the Democrat, you start wondering if THIS is where having some stricter standards might be in order.

Some of the observers (you know - the folks who are supposed to make sure the process is at least marginally better than it is in Iran) noted that they overheard people bragging about voting several times that night.

Jon M: "Hell, if I wasn't threatened with jail time, I wouldn't even fill out a Census form."

You aren't required to fill out a census form, no matter what they imply. The only authority the Census Bureau has is to count the number of people in a people in a household.

I returned my 2010 census form with that information only.

The whole purpose of the census is to determine representation in Congress, not all the demographic information that's asked for.

"Thoughts? I am sure there are problems wit this idea. It was conceived in about 5 minutes."

Jon, Jon, you are an honest person, and you have trouble thinking like a devious criminal.

What would keep "dead" people from registering and receiving "admit one" voter cards? Would anyone notice that 1500 people lived at the same address? It doesn't appear that the poll workers seen in the video would be much of a bulwark against fraud.

I agree. Apparently you, like me, would prefer NO government, but counting people for representation is at least constitutional. If every government action was narrowly confined within the limits of the Constitution, I would have few complaints.

And, compared to some things, the tyranny of being counted every to years is way down there on my list of complaints. :)